A Debate with a Bircher: Part 1

What you are about to read is shocking. It
is the story of a debate with a chapter leader of the John Birch Society that
started off with good intentions, but never really evolved into a serious
discussion. Thanks to an unwillingness to acknowledge even the most
obvious of errors and a touch of Birch form, the truth quickly took a back seat
to preconception and ego rather than a thoughtful exchange of ideas. The entire debate as it happened is here
unedited with the exception of a few spelling errors. All non-relevant material was deleted
for the sake of brevity.

When I first began putting this together I chose
not to delete anything. Unfortunately, the emails that were sent to me quickly became so long that it was impossible to
manage on a single web page. Even with so much deleted it is still a very
long debate: over 160 pages of printed material. All of the web URLs are left intact and
active so that you can go to the cited page from here. Those URLs that are
inactive are now dead links. In the cases where all of the text was
deleted for brevity, I decided to keep
the titles and bylines so that you can get an idea about the content of the
following message. I recommend going to a few of the active URLs as you read the debate:
it will give you a sense of how the debate took shape and what was the actual
text that was sent to me for response. Most of the web pages that were
cited are far too long to put here without editing for brevity.

Where the text is deleted by me afterward, it is clearly stated and set off as
is the case at the very beginning.

Don’t get the idea that you know the outcome before you read
on, however, as the debate takes twists and turns that even I could never have
foreseen, which makes it quite unpredictable until you start figuring out the
patterns that all of the conversations follow. The text set off by the > marks
are those from the previous message sent by me or from JAQ, who will remain
anonymous until the very end. My
next response has no set off marks. My personal comments afterward are set off by
long dashed lines as you see below after my first response.

Well if that is so, why can’t you or anyone else provide any evidence that

is not fabricated about your ridiculous global plot nonsense.

Name your book, name your page number, name your reference source: the
evidence must be verifiable. Now that you and everyone else has been
challenged, we will see if you can stand up to serious scrutiny.

And so the great debate begins. One of the most striking tactics that
the John Birch Society (JBS) and other conspiracy theorists commonly use on this issue is to overwhelm the opponent with
information. The assumption, of course, is the common fallacy of logic
that since there is so much information available on the subject that it must be
true; the sheer enormity of printed text unquestionably makes it fact. In the case of
JAQ, it is taken to an extreme. Even
on the first day there were two
separate conversations going on simultaneously: this first one above and another
that will be dealt with later separately, both of which involve very long texts,
and neither of which had a specific question to answer, presumably
for me to respond to each and every point. From there it was a virtual
avalanche of irrelevant
information as we will see, on some days numbering over a dozen simultaneous
conversations. I decided to let you see each separate conversation in it’s
entirety before moving on to the next exchange. This way it is much
easier for you to follow, as well as for me to comment on the debate as it
happened. You should note as you read the following that most of these
conversations were happening simultaneously, not one at a time as you see
here. There are many times when issues are mentioned that relate to
another parallel conversation. Remember also that for many of these
exchanges, the ending point
of one and the starting point of the next conversation are not as clear cut as
is usual in personal dialogue; JAQ changes the subject at almost every turn as
we will see, choosing almost never to engage me on any given point, preferring
to point the debate in a completely different direction than the subject at hand
would indicate. JAQ now continues the fledgling debate with his response:

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Well if that is so, why can’t you or anyone else provide any
evidence that
> >is not fabricated about your ridiculous global plot nonsense.
>

> What’s so
ridiculous?!? If you were wealthy, wouldn’t you try to
> use some of it to influence politics? I would, although I have a solid
> moral foundation and attend church weekly. Visit the UN homepage and look
> for yourself………
>
> <http://www.un.org>
>

> “Shadows Of Power” – James Perloff
> “Vision Of The Anointed” – Dr. Thomas Sowell
>
> I could go on
forever. Pick anyone, any page you like……
>
> >Now that you and everyone else has been challenged, we will see if you
can

> >stand up to serious scrutiny.
>
> Don’t make me
laugh!!!
>
>

—————————————————————–

No sooner had I begun to answer this conversation and the other that will be
dealt with later that arrived on the first day, five more emails arrived that
evening, each with entirely different issues, and one admittedly “too
voluminous to paste;” a virtual avalanche of printed material if indeed I
chose to do so from my printer. Here are the titles:

None of these additional emails were answered because I usually don’t answer
if it means too much time. Aside from that, at the time I was taking a
college summer course and could ill-afford to do so. A few days later I would drop
the class by coincidence. My next response continues with an open
challenge to JAQ to answer the stated document at my web site:

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Well if that is so, why can’t you or anyone else provide any evidence
that
> >is not fabricated about your ridiculous global plot nonsense.

>
> What’s so
ridiculous?!? If you were wealthy, wouldn’t you try to
> use some of it to influence politics? I would, although I have a solid
> moral foundation and attend church weekly. Visit the UN homepage and look
> for yourself………
>
> <http://www.un.org>

> “Shadows Of Power” – James Perloff
> “Vision Of The Anointed” – Dr. Thomas Sowell
>
> I could go on
forever. Pick anyone, any page you like……
>
> >Now that you and everyone else has been challenged, we will see if you

can
> >stand up to serious scrutiny.
>
> Don’t make me
laugh!!!
>
>
Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Rule number one when dealing with someone who has

done some serious research on the subject when you haven’t: never let your
opponent control the debate.

But since you insist, dear, please explain the following written from a
well known conspiracy theory author:

It wasn’t until after the debate was finished and I was working on putting this
debate together for the web that I realized that I had a golden opportunity
staring me in the face here. In hindsight, as soon as I started receiving
multiple emails, I began immediately to wonder if JAQ was really intent on a
serious debate or not. As it turns out, my suspicions were proven
correct. JAQ mentions several sources above that I
would gladly have challenged.

What I should have done was challenge him on
one of the books that he cited above and get him to agree to check a source that
is cited in one of the books. That would have saved an enormous amount of
time and energy that ended up getting wasted on a debate that would last more
than two weeks. This is precisely what *should* have happened with the
Sutton article mentioned above anyway: he would have checked the source and
found the fabrication himself, rather than reading it from me. But,
unfortunately, I didn’t think of it at the time. In part three of this debate, I will deal with one of the above titles: Hope Of The Wicked,

by Ted Flynn

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>
> >Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Rule number one when dealing with someone who
has
> >done some serious research on the subject when you haven’t: never let
your

> >It will probably take you a few days to verify the information.
>
> I know Mr. Sutton
quite well………won’t be more than 24 hours, if that.
>
> > I look forward to hearing both of you eat crow.
>
> Won’t happen,
kid…….I’ve been studying the topic longer than you have! The evidence is
bulletproof!
>

>

—————————————————————–

His last statement that “I’ve been studying the topic longer than you
have!” portends things to come, for JAQ begins at this point to show
serious signs that he has no intention of engaging me in any serious
debate. His brush with error looms ever larger as the debate continues.
I mention in this next response that there is another person involved.
I thought that a person named Jill was sending me responses as well. As it turns out, JAQ was fiddling with his return
address which confused me. I didn’t figure this out until the very end of
the debate. My
response was in reality looking forward to both Jill and JAQ eat crow, rather than Sutton
and JAQ eating crow.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Rule number one when dealing with someone
who
has
> >done some serious research on the subject when you haven’t: never let

your
> >opponent control the debate.
> >
> >But since you insist, dear, please explain the following written from a
> >well known conspiracy theory author:
> >
> >http://www.floodlight.org/theory/sutton.html

> >
> >It will probably take you a few days to verify the information.
>
> I know Mr. Sutton
quite well………won’t be more than 24
hours,
> if that.
>
> > I look forward to hearing both of you eat crow.

>
> Won’t happen,
kid…….I’ve been studying the topic longer than
> you have! The evidence is bulletproof!
>
>

Actually, I was speaking of the other person who sent me a response, not
Mr. Sutton, if I read you correctly.

You can have him answer if you like, but the only way to really convince
you of any error is to do the homework yourself. Get the references that

are listed in the article and see them for yourself. Either way, you have
plenty of explaining to do. Every article at my website does the same
thing with different authors, including the JBS that you are apparently
fond of. You can check the info from any one of those articles as well,
but you’ll get the same result; fabricated nonsense on a scale you can’t
begin to imagine. But you’ll have to check sources to see it.

In this next response, JAQ mentions some emails that he had just sent
me. What he sent was yet another avalanche of material: six more articles for
me to peruse. I responded to one of them, but in a later
conversation. My response was essentially that I don’t have time to
respond to so
much. With so many responses going back and forth, some of them overlap,
making it difficult to reconstruct the debate in chronological order. Here
are the titles:

> THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, APRIL 21, 1935
>
>
NINE GROUPS INSTEAD OF THE 48 STATES
>
>
A Proposal for Rebuilding the Structure of Government
>
In Order to Deal With Issues on a National Scale

>
>
> By Delbert Clark

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

>Subject: From Hillsdale College…….

>
Statism: The Opiate of the Elites
>
by Theodore J. Forstmann

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

In this next response from JAQ, it is interesting that he seems to be putting
the ball back in my court; he agreed to a debate, I gave him something to
refute, and now he is deliberately ignoring what I gave him.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Actually, I was speaking of the other person who sent me a response,
not
> >Mr. Sutton, if I read you correctly.
> >
> >You can have him answer if you like, but the only way to really
convince
> >you of any error is to do the homework yourself. Get the references
that
> >are listed in the article and see them for yourself. Either way,
you have

> >plenty of explaining to do.
>
> ME?!? Hey,
cowboy……what about all the bulletproof evidence I
> sent to you?!?
>
> > Every article at my website does the same thing with different
authors,
> > including the JBS that you are apparently fond of. You can check the
info

> > from any one of those articles as well, but you’ll get the same
result;
> > fabricated nonsense on a scale you can’t begin to imagine.
>
> Horsefeathers! FWIW,
I am a Birch chapter leader. I am intimately
> familiar with their stories, sources and their literature. Am I saying the
> JBS is infallible?!? Of course not! Mistakes happen – sometimes too often.

> However, when one compares the nature and the impact of such mistakes, it’s
> fairly safe to say that aside from infrequent sloppy investigating
> episodes, most of the errors are simply “honest” mistakes.
>
> The ball rests in
your court, Hoss
>

>

—————————————————————–

In retrospect this is another major error on my part here: allowing JAQ to avoid the
argument regarding the Sutton article. Had I decided to be more focused
and less accommodating, a lot of time would not have been wasted on a long
debate. The debate
with the Sutton article continues for a few more emails back and forth, but no substantive
factual debate ever takes place, only dismissal from JAQ. Thereafter,
from that point forward in this debate, the Sutton article is never mentioned
again until the very end with my final response to JAQ. The oversight was
intentional on my part at this point since I was trying to be accommodating to his position,
rather than trying to press my own. I do this almost reflexively now on a
consistent basis since there has never been anyone brave enough to challenge my
data. What I hoped would happen at this point was that JAQ would
eventually run out of steam and then start asking serious questions or give up.

This is the natural course of any debates I encounter these days. From
there it is just a matter of challenging him to verify conspiracy theory data,
the weakest point of any conspiracy theory. That is the point where
everyone else quits the debate: the mere challenge to verify any data contained
in a conspiracy theory book or article sends conspiracy theorists into a virtual
tizzy. And rightfully so since conspiracy theories are fabricated anyway
from stem to stern. For JAQ, however, the steam just kept on coming, and
coming, and coming with no end that ever happened. Much later in the
debate, the assumption that JAQ would run out of steam would prove a fatal
error. More later on this subject.

But for JAQ, something happened at this point that is not usually the
case. I presume that he probably wrote Sutton and got the same answer as
GT in the Sutton article: Sutton knew that he could not defend the data in
question and left JAQ to slug it out on his own. At some point during the
next day or so, JAQ made the deliberate decision not to deal with the Sutton
article since he knew he could not do so. The decision to change the
subject instead of acknowledging what he knew to be exposed fraudulent research only makes
the error look even worse. And therein lies
the error of the John Birch Society and other conspiracy theorists: the absolute
determination never to admit error, even when they confront it directly. This confrontation with error will be the first of many as the debate
continues. In this next response from me, I answer that “I answer this in my last message.”

That part of my response refers to another email that mentions not to keep
sending so many emails since I don’t have the time for multiple
conversations. We will deal with that conversation later. Here is my
response:

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Actually, I was speaking of the other person who sent me a response,
not
> >Mr. Sutton, if I read you correctly.
> >
> >You can have him answer if you like, but the only way to really
convince
> >you of any error is to do the homework yourself. Get the references
that
> >are listed in the article and see them for yourself. Either way,
you

have
> >plenty of explaining to do.
>
> ME?!? Hey,
cowboy……what about all the bulletproof evidence I
> sent to you?!?
>

I answer this in my last message.

> > Every article at my website does the same thing with different
authors,
> > including the JBS that you are apparently fond of. You can check the
info
> > from any one of those articles as well, but you’ll get the same
result;
> > fabricated nonsense on a scale you can’t begin to imagine.

>
> Horsefeathers! FWIW,
I am a Birch chapter leader. I am
intimately
> familiar with their stories, sources and their literature. Am I saying
the
> JBS is infallible?!? Of course not! Mistakes happen – sometimes too
often.
> However, when one compares the nature and the impact of such mistakes,

Nope. The ball’s in your court now. You still haven’t answered the Sutton
article. When we finish with Sutton, I’m going to give you an interesting
lesson in Birch-ness. We will take Birch authors and wipe them off the

map.

Tell you what. If you’re so sure you are right, forward this message and
all succeeding ones to your Birch mailing list for your chapter. If you’re
serious about who’s lying to whom, it seems to me that you should at least
consider my request. If Birchers really do have the “Weapon of
Truth” as

they like to call it, I think they might like to hear an opposing point of
view that calls into question whether they are really getting the truth
that they want to hear, or whether it is indeed the John Birch Society’s
writings that cannot stand the test of public scrutiny.

Ignoring the Sutton article now becomes completely transparent: note that the
context of the Birch authors comment by me has been deleted in his
response. The debate was supposed to be his response to Sutton first, then comes the stuff with
Birch authors. Instead, JAQ now takes the debate in, yes, seven different
directions, quite apart from the multiple emails he has already sent, which
already number over a dozen.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > We will take Birch authors and wipe them off the map.
>
> Bring it on, son!!!

>
> >Tell you what. If you’re so sure you are right, forward this message
and
> >all succeeding ones to your Birch mailing list for your chapter. If
you’re
> >serious about who’s lying to whom, it seems to me that you should at
least
> >consider my request. If Birchers really do have the “Weapon of
Truth” as
> >they like to call it, I think they might like to hear an opposing point
of

> >view that calls into question whether they are really getting the truth
> >that they want to hear, or whether it is indeed the John Birch
Society’s
> >writings that cannot stand the test of public scrutiny.
>
> No prob, my
man…..among your errors:
>
> The “American
Far Right” is what you label Constitutionalists

> (best known group is the JBS). In TRUTH, the Constitution is a centrist
> document. For an independent verification, go to
> <http://www.constitution.org>
This organization is in no way affiliated
> with Birchers, shape, or form. This is the finest source of Founding
> Fathers’ documents on-line, anywhere. Period.

>
> You state, “The
Protocols were first published in a St. Petersburg
> periodical around 1902. They remained pretty much an obscure document until
> after the first world war.” Evidence suggests very strongly that
either
> Vladimir Lenin, or Karl Marx (both Jews) authored “The
Protocols”. If you

> desire concrete proof, contact “The New American Magazine”, or
visit their
> website <http://www.thenewamerican.com>.
I cannot speak for off-shoot
> groups, but as far as the JBS is concerned, “The Protocols” are a
complete
> joke!

>
> Your statement of
faith:
>
> ” I believe that
there is but one eternal God; the father, the
> Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God; each are distinct from one another
> and each of these three Persons is God and each is an eternal, coexistent
> Person, and that they are so united as to comprise one God.”

>
> This suggests to me
that you are Catholic. However, you defend
> Freemasonry in several areas of your site. If you are a focus, practicing
> Catholic, you’d know better. Several members of the Papacy (including John
> Paul, II) have declared Freemasonry as anti-Catholic and excommunication is
> the penalty for any Catholic involved in Freemasonry or the promotion
> thereof. <http://www.thevatican.org>

>
> Under
“Conspiracy FAQs”, you have links to “PRA” and the
> “Anti-Defamation League.” These are both hard-leftist
organizations. Go to
> <http://www.towardtradition.org>

for more truth on the ADL.
>
> You write:
>
> “What about the
United Nations, NAFTA and GATT: Are these not
> clear signs of one world government? (and answer with) No. The UN always
> was a post World War 2 idea.”
>

> Absolutely FALSE!!!!
>
> “It was
inevitable that someone would come up with the idea that
> individual countries would come together to deal with their problems in a
> common diplomatic forum. This was the same idea as the defunct League of
> Nations.”
>

> And the “League
of Nations” was not approved by the federal
> legislature because of it’s pro-communist support base. The proof of this
> abounds: “Shadow Government” by James Perloff, “Hope Of The
Wicked” by Ted

> Flynn, “Illuminati” by Dr. Pat Robertson, “Behind The Lodge
Door” by Paul
> Fisher, “Planned Destruction Of America” by James Wardner (and on
and on……)
>
> Now……..I gave you
the UN website that in their own words

> PROVES conclusively the UN views itself as a monolithic centralized world
> governing body. What is there not to understand?
>
>
>

—————————————————————–

This is where the tricky part begins. In another conversation that
overlaps here, I mention below that I had told him not to write me with so many
emails. He heeds not my words here in the slightest, but starts up again
later the very next day with another URL to to peruse and yet another
conversation to chase. I do answer one
portion below, but make at least a fleeting effort to refuse to get sucked into
yet another irrelevant mess. This is also the point where the
official public part of the debate actually begins; JAQ agrees above to
forward the remaining emails to his Birch chapter. There is no way for me
to know, but in retrospect I seriously doubt that JAQ ever had any intention to
forward any emails at all.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Lord have mercy, John. For the *third time,* I don’t have time for
multiple conversations at the same time. We can forget the Sutton article
if you want, or we can concentrate on something else. Either way, there is

only going to be *ONE* argument at a time we will deal with. Period. I
prefer Sutton, but you can pick another if you wish. One argument, one
paragraph, one assertion, that’s it! Lucky for you today is a class day.

ps There is also something else I thought needed to be clarified below,
unrelated to further arguments.

> > We will take Birch authors and wipe them off the map.
>
> Bring it on, son!!!
>
> >Tell you what. If you’re so sure you are right, forward this message
and

> >all succeeding ones to your Birch mailing list for your chapter. If
you’re
> >serious about who’s lying to whom, it seems to me that you should at
least
> >consider my request. If Birchers really do have the “Weapon of
Truth” as
> >they like to call it, I think they might like to hear an opposing point

of
> >view that calls into question whether they are really getting the truth
> >that they want to hear, or whether it is indeed the John Birch
Society’s
> >writings that cannot stand the test of public scrutiny.
>
> No prob, my
man…..among your errors:
>
> The “American
Far Right” is what you label Constitutionalists

> (best known group is the JBS). In TRUTH, the Constitution is a centrist
> document. For an independent verification, go to
> <http://www.constitutional.org>
This organization is in no way affiliated
> with Birchers, shape, or form. This is the finest source of Founding
> Fathers’ documents on-line, anywhere. Period.

>
> You state, “The
Protocols were first published in a St.
Petersburg
> periodical around 1902. They remained pretty much an obscure document
until
> after the first world war.” Evidence suggests very strongly that
either

> groups, but as far as the JBS is concerned, “The Protocols” are a
complete
> joke!
>
> Your statement of
faith:
>
> ” I believe that
there is but one eternal God; the father, the

> Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God; each are distinct from one another
> and each of these three Persons is God and each is an eternal, coexistent
> Person, and that they are so united as to comprise one God.”
>
> This suggests to me
that you are Catholic. However, you defend
> Freemasonry in several areas of your site. If you are a focus, practicing
> Catholic, you’d know better. Several members of the Papacy (including

John
> Paul, II) have declared Freemasonry as anti-Catholic and excommunication
is
> the penalty for any Catholic involved in Freemasonry or the promotion
> thereof. <http://www.thevatican.org>
>

No. I think you forgot the first paragraph: “The following is a brief

synopsis of my religious convictions. These doctrinal statements are the
core of the modern fundamentalist Christian faith. In view of the fact that
many in the fundamentalist church in America teach that the New World Order
conspiracy theory is fact, those who may question my motives or convictions
are encouraged to read the following.”

In strictly Birch terms, I’m an official funny money fundy, much along the
lines of a James Dobson, William Bennett or Jerry Falwell. The trinity,

the virgin birth, etc., pretty much define fundys.

c ya

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

—————————————————————–

My response of William Bennett is incorrect. In fact,
the well-known conservative author and commentator is an outspoken catholic, not
a protestant fundamentalist as are Dobson and Falwell.

This next response by JAQ appears to be
the last email in this conversation. As will be the case for most of the
ensuing debate, he chooses to change the subject rather than engage me on an
issue that has already been introduced. As to multiple conversations, most of the
email directly above is
deleted in his response, which would appear to be a positive step, but right
after being told that there should only be only one conversation below, he introduces
two more entirely different conversations to chase after, obviously ignoring the
Sutton article that by now he was certain neither he nor Sutton could
defend. From this point forward, the Sutton
article is never mentioned again until my last note to JAQ. It is not a
coincidence that he chose this path, either: remember that the conversation is
now public with his local JBS chapter, if indeed he kept to his promise to
forward his messages. By the end of the debate, of course, I begin to
seriously doubt that he was forwarding the debate as he had intimated.
Assuming he did so, any decision that he makes now is
public, making it even more difficult to acknowledge any sort of error.
There is an old saying that says, “Be careful what you ask for.”

In this case I asked for a public debate and JAQ gave me exactly what I
wanted. There is no way for me to know if JAQ ever felt threatened by the
debate, but I suspect that if it were not so public, he may have been more
disposed to acknowledge error, although it is doubtful anyway; experience
has taught me never to expect it from long time conspiracy theorists.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Lord have mercy, John. For the *third time,* I don’t have time for

> >multiple conversations at the same time. We can forget the Sutton
article
> >if you want, or we can concentrate on something else. Either way, there
is
> >only going to be *ONE* argument at a time we will deal with. Period. I
> >prefer Sutton, but you can pick another if you wish.
>
> Look at the UN
website and “Project 21”!!!! It’s all there!!

>
> >One argument, one paragraph, one assertion, that’s it! Lucky for you
today
> >is a class day.
>
> And you’re going to
“wipe JBS writers off the map?” Lookit, I’ve
> been trying to tell you that the “bullet-proof” evidence is
voluminous!!!

I decided at this point to give up on ever getting anything substantive
returned about the Sutton
article. I chose instead to go to the UN site that he mentions so dear to his
heart and engage him on his own turf. This next conversation is short, as
we will see, only one email each way. We will deal with the “Project 21”

issue that he mentions directly above in a later conversation.

On an interesting note, my efforts to engage JAQ on his own turf were far
less time consuming than you might imagine. Prior to this debate, I had
only been to the UN web site maybe two or three times, and none of those were more
than a few minutes either. Even worse for me, it had been probably several years
since my last visit. Despite my complete ignorance of anything remotely
considered to be UN material, I found the following answer to his challenge within probably one or two
minutes of being there. Imagine my existential delight when I realized
that I could converse with the best arguments that the John Birch Society could
offer and still destroy the argument with almost no time given to
actually reading any text. My delight was taken to new heights with the realization that the John
Birch Society has been around for over forty years and never read the same
material, whether it was printed material before or web material now. To
think that such material could be missed for so long by the John Birch Society
and those who call themselves “journalists,” and are actually *paid*
to fan-out-and-find-the-plot does indeed tickle the humorous lobe; it’s
side-splitting stuff, folks.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Lord have mercy, John. For the *third time,* I don’t have time for
> >multiple conversations at the same time. We can forget the Sutton
article

> >if you want, or we can concentrate on something else. Either way,
there is
> >only going to be *ONE* argument at a time we will deal with.
Period. I
> >prefer Sutton, but you can pick another if you wish.
>
> Look at the UN
website and “Project 21”!!!! It’s all

“When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to
accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty
which sets out basic principles of international relations. According
to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international

peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to
cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect
for human rights, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of
nations.”

So, uhhh where’s the open global plot? Gee, I couldn’t find any.
Perhaps if you could point me in the direction of the .plot page, I
might be able to understand your angst. It would even be better if

> >http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html
> >
> >”When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to
> >accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty
> >which sets out basic principles of international relations. According
> >to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international

> >peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to
> >cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect
> >for human rights, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of
> >nations.”
>
> This is basically
feel-good nonsense……
>

> >So, uhhh where’s the open global plot?
>
> Gotta dig a little
deeper……..
>
> >Gee, I couldn’t find any. Perhaps if you could point me in the
direction
> >of the .plot page, I might be able to understand your angst.
>
> <Sigh!!!>

As you wish…………
>
> >It would even be better if you could cite the passage that best proves
> >your case.
>
> Very well………..
>
> Go here <http://www.cgg.ch/millenium.htm>

This is an overview of
> all the areas the United Nations is planning to dig its Communist fists
> into. Here’s but a mere taste:
>
>
> INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE
>
> A key theme of Our
Global Neighbourhood was the need for “a global

> forum that can provide leadership in economic, social and environmental
> fields”, and the Commission proposed the establishment of “an
Economic
> Security Council to give political leadership and promote consensus on
> international economic issues, where there are threats to security in its
> widest sense”.

>
> There has been little progress on this
specific initiative, but the
> strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements have been more firmly
> underlined. On the positive side, there has been genuine and considerable
> progress in creating a rules-based system for trade within a multilateral
> organisation of (near) universal membership. There is now the potential to
> widen the agenda, increase participation and deepen liberalisation. The

> UN-brokered Climate Convention and subsequent Kyoto Protocol also represent
> considerable achievements, albeit well short of the hopes of
environmentalists.

—————————————————————–

The above conversation ends and a new one starts below that will *again* be only one email each
way. Let’s review here. He tells me to go to the UN web site.
I did so. I cited a passage that he could not answer adequately, so now he
sends me to yet *another* web site, rather that engaging me at the UN web site where
he specifically told me to go, with the excuse that I have now “Gotta dig a little
deeper……..” I even told him to “cite the passage that best proves
your case,” an obvious inference to stay with the UN web site in question,
but alas to no avail. Not to fear, though, it’s standard Birch fare really:
never acknowledge error, just change the subject.

> >”When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to
> >accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty
> >which sets out basic principles of international relations.
According
> >to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international
> >peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to

> >cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting
respect
> >for human rights, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of
> >nations.”
>
> This is basically
feel-good nonsense……
>
> >So, uhhh where’s the open global plot?

>
> Gotta dig a little
deeper……..
>
> >Gee, I couldn’t find any. Perhaps if you could point me in the
direction
> >of the .plot page, I might be able to understand your angst.
>
> <Sigh!!!>

As you wish…………
>
> >It would even be better if you could cite the passage that best
proves
> >your case.
>
> Very well………..
>
> Go here <http://www.cgg.ch/millenium.htm>

This is an
overview of
> all the areas the United Nations is planning to dig its Communist
fists
> into. Here’s but a mere taste:
>
>
> INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

>
> A key theme of Our
Global Neighbourhood was the need for “a
global
> forum that can provide leadership in economic, social and
environmental
> fields”, and the Commission proposed the establishment of “an

Economic
> Security Council to give political leadership and promote consensus
on
> international economic issues, where there are threats to security
in its
> widest sense”.
>

> There has been little progress on this
specific initiative,
but the
> strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements have been more
firmly
> underlined. On the positive side, there has been genuine and
considerable
> progress in creating a rules-based system for trade within a

multilateral
> organisation of (near) universal membership. There is now the
potential to
> widen the agenda, increase participation and deepen liberalisation.
The
> UN-brokered Climate Convention and subsequent Kyoto Protocol also
represent

> considerable achievements, albeit well short of the hopes of
environmentalists.

Yessssss! Now we are finally getting to the meaty schtuff….

Curious that you would consider quoting the above passage. Far from
any global plot, the passage freely admits that there has been little

progress on the specific initiative: an admission of failure, at least
for the time being. Sounds pretty honest to me; nothing sinister,
nothing hidden, nothing progress, as it were.

Even worse for your case, the paper itself even discourages the UN
from solving the problems of the member states. Here’s the URL:

“For civil society, one lesson is clear: the surest way to move the UN
and the international community is first to build a strong political
foundation within the member states, including the most powerful ones.
The quickest way to foster dissonance and discord within the world
body, on the other hand, is to seek to achieve at the UN what one has
failed to achieve in capitals.”

> >Yessssss! Now we are finally getting to the meaty schtuff….
> >
> >Curious that you would consider quoting the above passage. Far from
> >any global plot, the passage freely admits that there has been little

> >progress on the specific initiative: an admission of failure, at least
> >for the time being. Sounds pretty honest to me; nothing sinister,
> >nothing hidden, nothing progress, as it were.
>
> You must read the
entire “Project 21” agenda. It is carefully
> couched in harmless-sounding words. Be that, as it may, I’m far from done,

> yet. Make certain that you have a firm understanding of the difference
> between a democracy and a republic – it’s not playing games with semantics.
> A democracy is majority (or mob) rule. A true republic has protections for
> the rights of all built into a constitutional framework. Democracies do not
> have such protections. They change policy willy-nilly, based on whatever is
> considered chic at the time.

Here we go again. JAQ ends one above conversation and starts another, instead
of sticking with the issue at hand which is the passage that I cited that
destroyed his argument. He
could not defend the very passage that he himself cited, neither could he answer
my response that directly contradicted his conspiracy theory, so now he sends me to
*yet another* web site in the hopes that he can somehow fare better. This is standard
operating procedure for Birchers and other conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists almost never stick to the issue at hand; the subculture to
which they subscribe is replete with this type of reasoning, that being that
conspiracies are by nature not capable of being seen in a concrete sense, they
are seen through the eyes of inference: that the shadowy world of the unseen
movers and shakers cannot be seen, they must be assumed or inferred. After
all, so the reasoning goes, the conspirators are too smart to let their evil
plots be known lest they be found and exposed. And that is precisely why
JAQ never finds the plot he says is there at the UN or anywhere else: you cannot
prove it, for Pete’s sake, you have to “see” it, through the eyes of special knowledge known only to those who “know the real truth,”
as it were. As we will find later, JAQ destroys this conspiracy theory
type of reasoning later on by his own admission. Real conspiracies are not
nearly as shadowy as the John Birch Society would have us believe; to wit, real
conspiracies are quite concrete as we will see much later.

This next response from me below ends this conversation and defers to a
project 21 conversation that we will pick up later. I ended this
conversation because of time constraints. My email back to JAQ refers back to
the email where project 21 is first mentioned (not the email directly
above).

Recall that I had told him not to send me multiple emails. I
was still trying to keep the number of emails down at this time, so here is
where I start ending conversations that should never have come up in the first
place. This next
message was written two days after I wrote the other email to stay away from
multiple conversations.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Yessssss! Now we are finally getting to the meaty schtuff….

> >
> >Curious that you would consider quoting the above passage. Far from
> >any global plot, the passage freely admits that there has been
little
> >progress on the specific initiative: an admission of failure, at
least
> >for the time being. Sounds pretty honest to me; nothing sinister,

> >nothing hidden, nothing progress, as it were.
>
> You must read the
entire “Project 21” agenda. It is
carefully
> couched in harmless-sounding words. Be that, as it may, I’m far from
done,

> yet. Make certain that you have a firm understanding of the
difference
> between a democracy and a republic – it’s not playing games with
semantics.
> A democracy is majority (or mob) rule. A true republic has
protections for
> the rights of all built into a constitutional framework. Democracies

do not
> have such protections. They change policy willy-nilly, based on
whatever is
> considered chic at the time.
>
> Go here <http://www.wfa.org/>
>
>

>

I just tried to find project 21 at the UN site. I couldn’t find it.
What is the URL?

This next conversation below was the second email sent to me on the very
first day. The conversation only lasts for three emails. Note the
subject change. For most of the ensuing debate, the subject line remains
the same (not the subject below) even though the conversation might be completely different.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: The UN: Not Your Friend!

> Document 39.6….08
April 2001..Get US out of the UN….12 good
> reasons to do so NOW…
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: The UN: Not Your Friend!

> Document
39.6….08 April 2001..Get US out of the UN….12 good
> reasons to do so NOW…
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

…And still no proof: just a lot of kooky conspiracy theory nonsense.
Give it up while you still have some credibility left!!

Hurling insults is another of the fruity fruits of Birchers and others who
tout conspiracy theories. This is the second of many insults JAQ sends,
the first one was at the very beginning of this debate. This conversation ends here below.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: The UN: Not Your Friend!

> >…And still no proof: just a lot of kooky conspiracy theory
nonsense.
> >Give it up while you still have some credibility left!!
>
> Listen, pal……..to
not see the ample proof around you, you must
> store your cranial void in your rectal cavity.

—————————————————————–

For this next conversation below, there are two different conversations that
came from the same response from me. The other has already been dealt with
earlier. My response is essentially that I don’t have time for more than
one conversation. It overlaps here with the earlier responses regarding the
Sutton article. Note that here JAQ tries to defend the Sutton article, but
that it has nothing at all to do with the content of the article, only a minor
point that somehow the JBS is not anti-Semitic. The subject of Birch anti-Semitism
will be dealt with shortly. Note also that the subject
line is now back to the original subject.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> At 07:10 PM 5/28/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Rule number one when dealing with someone who
has
> >done some serious research on the subject when you haven’t: never let
your
> >opponent control the debate.

>
> Damn, you are so brazenly
cocky! Riddle me this, Batman….did you
> visit the UNITED NATIONS URL?!? Everything the JBS has ever said is right
> there – in there OWN words, Binky!!!
>
> >But since you insist, dear, please explain the following written from a
> >well known conspiracy theory author:

> >Eh heh heh heh heh heh. Rule number one when dealing with someone
who
has
> >done some serious research on the subject when you haven’t: never let
your
> >opponent control the debate.
>
> Damn, you are so
brazenly cocky! Riddle me this, Batman….did

you
> visit the UNITED NATIONS URL?!? Everything the JBS has ever said is right
> there – in there OWN words, Binky!!!
>
> >But since you insist, dear, please explain the following written from a
> >well known conspiracy theory author:
> >http://www.floodlight.org/theory/sutton.html

>
> Lie number one: The
JBS is anti-Semetic.
> Utterly ridiculous……there are Jews who are presently members – one
such
> person is Andy Dlinn <wa2ffy@amsat.org>
I guess you think Andy is an
> anti-Semite, too, eh?

>
> Have Mercy…………..
>
>
>
>

Unfortunately, I work two jobs and go to college full time, so I don’t have
time to answer all of your posts. That’s why I only challenged you on one
message: the rest I will have to leave. Aside from that, the challenge is

apparently different than what you think. The challenge is to check
sources, not just exchange information. The problem is easily solved with
conspiracy theories: sources, sources, sources. Once you do that for a few
minutes, a lot of things start getting pretty clear about who’s telling the
truth. The stuff with Sutton is pretty much par for the course with every

I chose not to deal with the subject of Birch anti-Semitism earlier because
of time constraints. Now that time is not a factor I can explain it more
thoroughly. As far as JAQ’s argument is concerned regarding current Jewish
membership, the argument is about as absurd as it gets. First of all,
naming a Jewish member only speaks to Jewish membership, not whether the JBS is
anti-Semitic. There are plenty of examples of Jewish anti-Semites; Dan
Burros wrote for American Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, there was also an
American Jew who worked on a Holocaust denial “documentary,” Benjamin
Freedman (who wrote several books), and Michael Korda, just to name a few.

This is not to say, by the way, that Jewish JBS members are anti-Semites; they
are not. But it is a ridiculous assertion to say that if you can name a Jew
that agrees with you than you are not an anti-Semitic organization.

Secondly, and far more importantly, the New World Order conspiracy theory was
derived mostly from the now famous fabricated document, The Protocols of Zion
— far and away the most famous anti-Semitic document of the twentieth
century. Even from the very beginning of it’s existence, the John Birch
Society has been confronted countless times with this fact in both public and private
and never has even remotely tried to refute the facts, other than the trite statement
that it is just another smear by the left. If it were a smear, by the way,
all you would have to do is expose the fabricated evidence and be done with
it. The fact that they have not and indeed *cannot* speaks volumes.
Those of us who seriously study this sort of thing would indeed *love* to hear
the JBS try to debunk the supposed smear. The only way to debunk the truth
about the anti-Semitic nature of the JBS is to deliberately lie about it, and by doing so they would only expose
themselves as the cowards that they really are.

Third, the John Birch Society routinely cites known anti-Semites as credible
authorities on the great global plot. G. Edward Griffin’s book, The
Creature from Jekyll Island, the one book which I am best familiar with,
cites Eustace Mullins and Charles A. Lindbergh, both of which are well known anti-Semitic
authors as a prime example. Fourth, the writings of the John Birch Society
and other authors who trumpet the New World Order theory are routinely listed in
known anti-Semitic and neo-nazi catalogues. By coincidence, I just received
my brand new 2001 – 2002 catalogue from Omni Publications just last night as I
am putting this debate together. You can read
Omni’s catalogue online if you doubt the anti-Semitic nature of Omni
Publications. Once there you can peruse through the writings of many of the most
vicious authors of anti-Semitism known today, as well as what is known widely as
“early patriotic” white supremacist material from authors such as
Elisabeth Dilling, Henry Ford, and many others. G Edward Griffin’s book is
listed, along with several others who are mentioned in this debate; Antony
Sutton, James Wardner, Bill Still, and Paul Fisher. The last four are
cited in this debate by none other that JAQ himself no less.

Let me very clear
so as not to leave any false impressions. The New World Order conspiracy
theory is the exclusive domain of those groups who are decisively outside the
bounds of democratic discourse. Groups within this ideological spectrum range from the John
Birch Society and other “Patriot” groups on the one end who distance
themselves from any racist overtones, and the overtly racist neo-nazi and white
supremacist groups on the other end of this spectrum. This entire spectrum
of groups has one common thread that binds most if not all of them: conspiracy
theories. Almost any material you choose to read within this ideological
spectrum is unmistakably laced with anti-Semitic innuendo, unquestionably
fabricated history, anti-government nonsense and an outright intolerance toward
any disagreement. Think of it this way: conspiracy theories are pretty
much the
dividing line between those who have chosen to be part of the democratic process
and those who have chosen demagoguery, demonization and inflammatory rhetoric as replacements
for thoughtful debate. The John Birch Society has been confronted with its
anti-Semitism and it’s fabricated history and willfully refuses to acknowledge
it. This debate is a classic example of this phenomenon: JAQ was
directly confronted with evidence that called into serious question the
credibility of conspiracy theory authors, including those of the John Birch
Society. Rather than engage me in a
serious discussion of the issues of fabricated evidence and credibility, he
deliberately chose not to acknowledge the transparent evidence that was put
forward to him and immediately changed the subject. Worse yet, he will
continue to do so throughout this entire debate, as we will see. As it has
been with JAQ, so it has also been with the John Birch Society since it’s inception. The willful refusal
to acknowledge sin does not mitigate it: quite the contrary, it transparently
magnifies it, much along the line of O.J. Simpson’s denial of his obvious guilt
regarding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

There are
well known researchers of right wing populism who disagree with this
assessment. They would argue that the JBS’s anti-Semitism is out of
ignorance. This is true to a certain extent in that it is not out of hate
or malice, as with overtly racist groups on the right who share the same
conspiracy theories. The counterpoint to this is that once confronted with
sin, you are now personally held accountable for your actions. On
countless occasions the John Birch Society has been confronted with it’s anti-Semitism
and it has consistently refused to acknowledge the anti-Semitic nature of it’s
conspiracy theories, despite the transparent obviousness of the facts. The Society has an obligation to either expose the
smear against it as fraudulent or sloppy research, or admit error. They
know full well they cannot do so. Far from ignorance, it is known as intractable obstinacy.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Unfortunately, I work two jobs and go to college full time,
>
> Bully for you, to
paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt. That’s precisely how
> I got through school, myself………

>
> >so I don’t have time to answer all of your posts.
>
> If nothing else,
immerse yourself in the UN webbie and read
> everything there about “Project 21” (formerly called “Man In
The Biosphere
> Project”). Nobody in their right mind can deny the global

> government/management agenda. Again, it’s not “conspiracy”, since
there’s
> no longer any effort to hide World Government goals. And, if you check the
> roster of former UN leadership, you’ll find that Alger Hiss (convicted for
> lying before a Congressional hearing on Hiss’ spying efforts for the
> Soviets) wrote the UN charter. Subsequent leaders were all

> Marxist/Communist Third World leaders.
>
> Game set and
match……….
>
>
>

—————————————————————–

Here we go again. I just finished telling JAQ that I do not have time
for answering all of his emails. Sure enough, rather than accepting this
as a reminder to respect time constraints, he chooses to send more
material to try to refute, then unilaterally declares victory. The
attitude of win-at-all-cost-by-default is clearly out of bounds for any serious
debate. Unfortunately, it is also the staple of long time conspiracy
theorists.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Unfortunately, I work two jobs and go to college full time,
>
> Bully for you, to
paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt. That’s precisely
how

> I got through school, myself………
>
> >so I don’t have time to answer all of your posts.
>
> If nothing else,
immerse yourself in the UN webbie and read
> everything there about “Project 21” (formerly called “Man In
The

Biosphere
> Project”). Nobody in their right mind can deny the global
> government/management agenda. Again, it’s not “conspiracy”, since
there’s
> no longer any effort to hide World Government goals. And, if you check
the
> roster of former UN leadership, you’ll find that Alger Hiss (convicted

for
> lying before a Congressional hearing on Hiss’ spying efforts for the
> Soviets) wrote the UN charter. Subsequent leaders were all
> Marxist/Communist Third World leaders.
>
> Game set and
match……….
>
>

>

Like I said, I’m only going to answer the other thread. I know where
all
of this is going since I’ve done this stuff many times. It’s just too time
consuming

Somewhere at this point in time JAQ decides to send me four more titles to
peruse, none of which I respond to, again because of time constraints.
Note that one of these titles is dealt with later under the same name,
but the conversation is entirely different. Here are the titles:

At this point I sent a note to JAQ that we should only stick with this thread
(the McCarthy thread). He then answers this email and then the next
conversation starts.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

Let’s just stick with this thread. Send me stuff about project 21.
The point of this whole thing is to show you by your own evidence that
the entire “theory” has been fabricated. That won’t happen if we
keep
skipping subjects. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is, the

end is always the same. Notice as well that we still have yet to deal
with one of *my* arguments, which are directly substantive. Your
arguments so far have not dealt with anything remotely involved with
any conspiracy.

> >Let’s just stick with this thread. Send me stuff about project 21.
>
> Done……
>
> >The point of this whole thing is to show you by your own evidence that

> >the entire “theory” has been fabricated. That won’t happen if
we keep
> >skipping subjects. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is, the
> >end is always the same. Notice as well that we still have yet to deal
> >with one of *my* arguments, which are directly substantive.
>
> Not really……..

>
> >Your arguments so far have not dealt with anything remotely involved
with
> >any conspiracy.
>
> Again, denial is not
a river in Egypt…….
>
>
>

—————————————————————–

This next conversation overlaps with an earlier exchange. I ended that
conversation because of time constraints. I started this one to keep the
number of emails down to one conversation at a time, hopefully this one.

This is JAQ’s response. My efforts to keep the number of emails down was
unsuccessful. The debate went nuclear right after this since I had decided
to drop my summer class by this time (by coincidence there was a possible death
in the family that affected my decision to drop the class).

Here we go again. This next response from me completely destroys JAQ’s
argument. As with all of my time at the web sites that he tells me to go
to, it only took a couple of quick minutes to skim some text and find the
obvious absurdities in his argument. He then changes the subject to a gun
control argument, then gives me *yet another* argument to chew on which
has nothing at all to do with the web site that he specifically told me to go
to. Birchers are
indeed a curious lot.

“The years following the Rio Conference (1992) have witnessed an
increase in the number of people living in absolute poverty,

particularly in developing countries. The enormity and complexity of
the poverty issue could endanger the social fabric, undermine economic
development and the environment, and threaten political stability in
many countries.

The General Assembly, in its 1997 Programme for the Further
Implementation of Agenda 21 (para 27) decided that poverty eradication
should be an overriding theme of sustainable development for the
coming years. It is one of the fundamental goals of the international

community and of the entire United Nations system, as reflected not
only in Chapter 3 of Agenda 21, but also in commitment 2 of the
Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development.

Priority actions include: (1) improving access to sustainable
livelihoods, entrepreneurial opportunities and productive resources;
(2) providing universal access to basic social services; (3)
progressively developing social protection systems to support those
who cannot support themselves; (4) empowering people living in poverty

and their organizations; (5) addressing the disproportionate impact of
poverty on women; (6) working with interested donors and recipients to
allocate increased shares of ODA to poverty eradication; and (7)
intensifying international cooperation for poverty eradication.

In the context of the multi-year programme of work adopted by the
General Assembly for the Commission on Sustainable Development,
poverty appears as an “overriding issue” on the agenda of the CSD each

year.”

No .plot here either. It sounds like somebody has gone to great
lengths to address the issue, rather than trying to cover it up with a
see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-approach. You would expect that from
.plotters, not money and effort into the *billions* to address a very
real problem. Even worse for your case, here is yet another explicit

statement of local control and non UN resources to combat the problem;
precisely the opposite of the global .plot with a few .plotters
pulling the strings as you would have us believe:

“(b) To implement policies and strategies that promote adequate
levels of

funding and focus on integrated human development policies, including
income
generation, increased local control of resources, local institution-
strengthening and capacity-building and greater involvement of
non-governmental
organizations and local levels of government as delivery mechanisms;”

> >Well gosh, no conspiracy as of yet. I did find this on poverty
> >though; another admission of failure in the very first paragraph:
> >

> >http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/poverty.htm
> >
> >”The years following the Rio Conference (1992) have witnessed an
> >increase in the number of people living in absolute poverty,
> >particularly in developing countries. The enormity and complexity of
> >the poverty issue could endanger the social fabric, undermine economic

> >development and the environment, and threaten political stability in
> >many countries.
>
> You’re being
bamboozled by pretty-sounding prose. Think……why
> would this organization give the southern end of a north-bound rat if
> people in America are privately armed?!? Okay, I’ll admit that the UN is
> still in the “paper-tiger” phase, but that is changing
incrementally. Try

> contemplating the following (source included):
>
> Los Angeles Times 6/8/99 James Pinkerton: “…Quick quiz: Who once
sang,
> “Imagine there’s no countries”? You’re right if you answered John
Lennon.
> Now how about this: “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete.”
Was that

> the next line of “Imagine,” the late Beatle’s 1971 utopian
anthem? No,
> those words were written by Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of State for
> this particular nation, when he was still a columnist for Time magazine, on
> July 20, 1992. Yet, even if he can’t carry a tune, attention should be paid
> to Talbott. He is more than a paper-pusher: He was the top U.S. negotiator

> in the Kosovo peace talks, spending some 50 hours negotiating last week
> with Russia’s Balkans envoy Viktor S. Chernomyrdin and Finnish President
> Martti Ahtisaari to strike the accord, which as of this writing is still
> discordant…Talbott has left a plentiful paper trail: In addition to 20
> years of work for Time, he has written, co-written or edited nine books
> about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. One theme runs through most of

> them: that Ronald Reagan, described in “Deadly Gambits” (1984) as
a
> “befuddled character,” deserves most of the blame for the nuclear
arms race
> of the 1980s. Indeed, in 1990, as his magazine dubbed Mikhail Gorbachev
> “Man of the Decade,” Talbott credited Gorbachev with
revolutionizing not

> just the U.S.S.R. but the rest of the planet: “The Gorbachev
phenomenon may
> have a transforming effect outside the communist world, on the perceptions
> and therefore the policies of the West.” ….If nothing else, Talbott
> expressed himself plainly: “All countries are basically social
> arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances . . . they are all

> artificial and temporary.” He pointed to the then-emerging European
Union
> as a “pioneer” of “supranational” regional cohesion
that could “pave the
> way for globalism.” ….”

>

—————————————————————–

This next conversation, which overlaps the one directly above since JAQ changed
the subject, is my first real attempt to get us on track to actually find a real
conspiracy. In this next response I answer him on several points, but
notice that when I answer his response several times, it has something to do
with his prior response, which is completely different than what JAQ has been
doing: sending me to yet another web site or giving me something else to read
that has nothing to do with the email in question. Also note a change at
this point. We will get into numbers of emails later, but it is here that
the debate turns into an all-out, red-blooded-American, star-spangled-banner
nuclear debate by email, numbering over a dozen simultaneous
conversations. Nuclear warfare can sometimes be fun, though admittedly
this one soured pretty quickly.

> >
> >”The years following the Rio Conference (1992) have witnessed an
> >increase in the number of people living in absolute poverty,
> >particularly in developing countries. The enormity and complexity
of
> >the poverty issue could endanger the social fabric, undermine
economic

> >development and the environment, and threaten political stability
in
> >many countries.
>
> You’re being
bamboozled by pretty-sounding prose.
Think……why
> would this organization give the southern end of a north-bound rat

if
> people in America are privately armed?!? Okay, I’ll admit that the
UN is
> still in the “paper-tiger” phase, but that is changing
incrementally. Try
> contemplating the following (source included):

It baffles me how Birchers think: first you claim global .plot, then
admit the UN is currently incapable of carrying out said global .plot,
since you freely admit they are a paper tiger. Secondly, criminals
don’t think about ten year time frames, they want it, and they want it
now, much like the drug trade or any form of organized crime. There

is absolutely no room whatsoever for incremental change if you are
part of a real conspiracy; you want it NOW; that’s why people get
killed who get in the way of real conspiracies.

Third, the UN does many things, like feeding children, fighting crime,
etc. One of the strategies for fighting global crime is getting rid
of small arms, which help criminals do crime. It only makes sense, if

you’re a liberal, of course. Hardly a .plot in sight here, either.
Duhh dude, some people blame guns for crime. Here we go again: more
democracy in action with a minority point of view.

>
> Los Angeles Times 6/8/99 James Pinkerton: “…Quick quiz: Who once
sang,

> “Imagine there’s no countries”? You’re right if you answered John
Lennon.
> Now how about this: “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete.”
Was
that
> the next line of “Imagine,” the late Beatle’s 1971 utopian
anthem?

No,
> those words were written by Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of
State for
> this particular nation, when he was still a columnist for Time
magazine, on
> July 20, 1992. Yet, even if he can’t carry a tune, attention should
be paid

> to Talbott. He is more than a paper-pusher: He was the top U.S.
negotiator
> in the Kosovo peace talks, spending some 50 hours negotiating last
week
> with Russia’s Balkans envoy Viktor S. Chernomyrdin and Finnish
President
> Martti Ahtisaari to strike the accord, which as of this writing is

still
> discordant…Talbott has left a plentiful paper trail: In addition
to 20
> years of work for Time, he has written, co-written or edited nine
books
> about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. One theme runs through most
of

> them: that Ronald Reagan, described in “Deadly Gambits” (1984) as
a
> “befuddled character,” deserves most of the blame for the nuclear
arms race
> of the 1980s. Indeed, in 1990, as his magazine dubbed Mikhail
Gorbachev

> “Man of the Decade,” Talbott credited Gorbachev with
revolutionizing
not
> just the U.S.S.R. but the rest of the planet: “The Gorbachev
phenomenon may
> have a transforming effect outside the communist world, on the
perceptions

> and therefore the policies of the West.” ….If nothing else,
Talbott
> expressed himself plainly: “All countries are basically social
> arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances . . . they
are all
> artificial and temporary.” He pointed to the then-emerging European

Union
> as a “pioneer” of “supranational” regional cohesion
that could “pave
the
> way for globalism.” ….”

>

Hardly a .plot in sight here, either. It’s just another kooky point
of view that will never really get anywhere, and even if it did,
where’s the .plot anyway? You still have not answered the basic
question: where’s the .plot? Even if I grant you all or any of your
arguments, you’ve said nothing about any conspiracy!!! So what? Some

people want a regional something in place of what is there now.
That’s democracy in action. John, you have to prove a CONSPIRACY, not
that some people are doing things you don’t like. And all of this
assumes, of course, that your premise is correct, that all of this is
leading to global government, which is easily countered and patently
absurd on its face: globalism has nothing in the slightest to do with

> >It baffles me how Birchers think: first you claim global plot, then
> >admit the UN is currently incapable of carrying out said global plot,

> >since you freely admit they are a paper tiger.
>
> That doesn’t negate
the “vision” (desire) of those who run the
> United Nations – or DOES it?!? Moreover, you’ve got roughly 85 Senators and
> as many as 325 Congress Representatives (guesstimation) who’d gladly yield
> an unlimited amount of power to the United Nations right this instant

> because they feel that the UN is completely innocuous.
>
> >Secondly, criminals don’t think about ten year time frames, they want
it,
> >and they want it now, much like the drug trade or any form of organized
> >crime.
>
> Don’t be stupid your
entire life, kid! There are but, 3,500 people

> at the core of the One World Governance movement. This is a movement that
> has spanned many, many generations and goes back quite a few centuries to
> the early 1700s (and perhaps beyond that).
>
> >There is absolutely no room whatsoever for incremental change if you
are
> >part of a real conspiracy; you want it NOW; that’s why people get
killed
> >who get in the way of real conspiracies.

>
> Like John F. Kennedy,
Ron Brown, or maybe William McKinley?!?
>
> >Third, the UN does many things, like feeding children, fighting crime,
> >etc.
>
> Horsefeathers!!! The
UN has done NOTHING, but dictate to the
> United States what to do!

>
> >One of the strategies for fighting global crime is getting rid of small
> >arms, which help criminals do crime.
>
> The United Nations is
against all private ownership of firearms –
> not just “small arms”, whatever-the-Hell-they-are. Ask the NRA!
Ask the
> GOA! Ask the Ludwig von Mises Organization. Ask Dr. Walter Williams. Ask

> >It baffles me how Birchers think: first you claim global plot, then
> >admit the UN is currently incapable of carrying out said global
plot,

> >since you freely admit they are a paper tiger.
>
> That doesn’t negate
the “vision” (desire) of those who run
the
> United Nations – or DOES it?!? Moreover, you’ve got roughly 85
Senators and

> as many as 325 Congress Representatives (guesstimation) who’d gladly
yield
> an unlimited amount of power to the United Nations right this
instant
> because they feel that the UN is completely innocuous.
>

Flat out lie. You cannot name a single one who would scrap the

Constitution!! Show me proof. There are those who like the UN, but
NOBODY would yield sovereignty over it, big difference.

> >Secondly, criminals don’t think about ten year time frames, they
want it,
> >and they want it now, much like the drug trade or any form of

organized
> >crime.
>
> Don’t be stupid your
entire life, kid! There are but, 3,500
people
> at the core of the One World Governance movement. This is a movement
that
> has spanned many, many generations and goes back quite a few

centuries to
> the early 1700s (and perhaps beyond that).

Thank you for proving an irrefutable point!! Someone who is going to
take over the world and plunder it is INCAPABLE of thinking in long
time frames. The fact that you claim centuries destroys your own
claim. This is not only common sense, basic criminology destroys the

argument. Imagine a future Hitler saying “Gee, folks, let’s wait
until twenty years past my lifetime before taking over the world.”
Mad men are incapable of letting someone else take over at a leter
date. That’s why we call them mad men. Real impressive, John.

>

> >There is absolutely no room whatsoever for incremental change if
you are
> >part of a real conspiracy; you want it NOW; that’s why people get
killed
> >who get in the way of real conspiracies.
>
> Like John F. Kennedy,
Ron Brown, or maybe William

McKinley?!?

Which report was it that had any one of these as part of a conspiracy?
None!!

>
> >You cannot name a single one who would scrap the Constitution!!
>
> In a New York minute!
But, do you think that people are going to
> wear such a sentiment on their shirt sleeve? Here’s a website you can see
> some names, but will you find any confessions about hating the Constitution
> in precise wording? Of course not. They are smart enough to at least know

> (Communism) are abject failures as systems of governance.
>
> >Show me proof.
>
> It’s right before
you.
>
> >There are those who like the UN, but NOBODY would yield sovereignty
over
> >it, big difference.

>
> Nobody?!? I
vehemently disagree! Were you aware of the call for a
> Constitutional Convention in 1995? Here, read up (sources
included)………
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Flat out lie.
>
> Not so fast!
>
> >You cannot name a single one who would scrap the Constitution!!
>
> In a New York minute!
But, do you think that people are

going to
> wear such a sentiment on their shirt sleeve? Here’s a website you
can see
> some names, but will you find any confessions about hating the
Constitution
> in precise wording? Of course not. They are smart enough to at least
know

In other words, you smear them because you don’t like them. ‘They
don’t say it, so I’m going to say it for them.’ Real impressive, John.
I asked you a direct question about proof. Answer it or admit error,
John. Show me proof and stop smearing people with words you freely
admit they never said.

That’s not proof, John, that’s lying about someone because you want it
to be true.

> > >
> > > >You cannot name a single one who would scrap the
Constitution!!
> > >
> > > In a New
York minute! But, do you think that people are
> >going to

> > > wear such a sentiment on their shirt sleeve? Here’s a website you
> >can see
> > > some names, but will you find any confessions about hating the
> >Constitution
> > > in precise wording? Of course not. They are smart enough to at
least

> > >
> > > Now, you’ll
see what they stand for by going here:
> > > <http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html>
> >
> >In other words, you smear them because you don’t like them.

>
> I don’t have to smear
anyone, sir! They speak for themselves.
>
> >’They don’t say it, so I’m going to say it for them.’ Real impressive,
John.
>
> Listen, you impudent,
little punk……..and listen to me but
> GOOD!!! I’ve heard most of these people speak on CNN, C-SPAN and various
> other outlets. I’ve read texts of some of their speeches and I know how

> they think! I have heard them slander traditional American values and show
> contempt for the way they perceive America has shortchanged them. Perhaps
> that means little to you, but it’s what our boys fought for in WWII. Deal
> with it.
>

—————————————————————–

JAQ could not produce a single smidgeon of evidence from his
ridiculous John Birch conspiracy theory bible that there is even *one* in
all of Congress who would scrap the Constitution tomorrow, so now he turns to
vomiting insults in the hopes that it somehow makes it fact. It doesn’t,
of course, but what it *does* do is expose the shallowness of Birch
thinking. Yet again, JAQ could not produce a shred of evidence for his
global plot nonsense, and when push finally came to shove he backed out of the
conversation by forwarding me a copy of my response. He does this with all
of the conversations going on at this time, by the way, a tacit admission that
he was losing the debate and had given up altogether. What is sad is that
he never even remotely considered acknowledging error, instead turning to other
means to end each and every conversation we had rather than face himself and
admit the truth that he had been deceived by those he so faithfully believed
in.

Fascinating this phenomenon of listening to CNN, C-SPAN and other outlets and
gleaning that, “I’ve heard most of these people speak on CNN, C-SPAN and various
other outlets. I’ve read texts of some of their speeches and I know how they think! I have heard them slander traditional American values and show
contempt for the way they perceive America has shortchanged them.” It
is truly mind boggling the things right wingers hear that are never said.
I sometimes catch liberals and CFR meetings on C-SPAN as well, and I many times
hear things that I don’t agree with. But to make the completely ridiculous
assertion that they somehow are slandering traditional American values is simply
over the top. Birchers apparently have not figured out that indeed there
are those who were not raised as they were, that sometimes what is obvious to
them is not obvious to someone else raised under completely different circumstances.
Wonder of wonders, folks, not everyone on planet earth is a right wing nut! The utter absurdity of thinking that everyone else who says something
you don’t like is slandering America is intellectually vacant at best. If someone has
another opinion, we here in America call it democracy in action. To wit,
were even proud of it. Birchers need to get out more. Below is the last email of this conversation.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > >
> > > >Flat out lie.

> > >
> > > Not so
fast!
> > >
> > > >You cannot name a single one who would scrap the
Constitution!!
> > >

> > > In a New
York minute! But, do you think that people are
> >going to
> > > wear such a sentiment on their shirt sleeve? Here’s a website
you
> >can see

> > > some names, but will you find any confessions about hating the
> >Constitution
> > > in precise wording? Of course not. They are smart enough to at
least
> >know

> > > Now, you’ll
see what they stand for by going here:
> > > <http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html>
> >
> >In other words, you smear them because you don’t like them.
>
> I don’t have to smear
anyone, sir! They speak for

themselves.
>
> >’They don’t say it, so I’m going to say it for them.’ Real
impressive, John.
>
> Listen, you impudent,
little punk……..and listen to me
but
> GOOD!!! I’ve heard most of these people speak on CNN, C-SPAN and

various
> other outlets. I’ve read texts of some of their speeches and I know
how
> they think! I have heard them slander traditional American values
and show
> contempt for the way they perceive America has shortchanged them.
Perhaps

> that means little to you, but it’s what our boys fought for in WWII.
Deal
> with it.
>

Right, John. You lie about what they say by puting words in their
mouth, then justify it by saying “I don’t have to smear anyone, sir!

They speak for themselves.” Fine, John, produce a direct quote that
directly states that they want to scrap or abolish the constitution.
You cannot.

It is worthy of note here that I specifically refrained from calling JAQ a
liar here. I could easily have done so, but chose the path civility
rather than insulting him, even when it was clearly justified. JAQ
apparently soiled his skivvies when I challenged his ridiculous argument that
Congress has “roughly 85 Senators and as many as 325 Congress Representatives
(guesstimation) who’d gladly yield an unlimited amount of power to the United Nations right this instant
because they feel that the UN is completely innocuous.” Oh my
goodness! The level of open denial of error in order to make such an obviously
indefensible assertion is staggering! Even worse, JAQ even had the gall to
defend such a statement. JAQ chose not to admit the transparent error of
openly lying about members of Congress that he didn’t like. This is yet
another classic example of a conspiracy theorist who could not bring himself to
acknowledging the most conspicuous of errors.

It is also worthy of note here that JAQ was now openly lying
on several occasions during this debate: he deliberately lied by omitting the
Sutton article from the debate, he lied about forwarding emails to his Birch
Chapter, then decided on a whim to openly lie about members of Congress he
didn’t like. Standard Birch fare.

This next conversation below is about the gun control debate. The
second part of my response is pretty weak, mostly because at this point I was
convinced that JAQ was really not interested in a serious debate. The conversation did not come from another conversation. It was
another email intended to change the subject to something else, but I decided to
answer it anyway. From this point forward, *all* emails were responded to,
regardless of number and content. This is the all-out nuclear debate stuff I mentioned
earlier. In reality this next conversation was ridiculous, I don’t think
either one of us fared very well. JAQ’s answers were probably even better
on this one, even though it leads to nowhere.

Bircher. Some of us call this a “duhh.” Secondly, the
entire piece
is an opinion piece, chock full of innuendo and conclusion without
premise. Exactly the same thing you’ve been doing throughout this
conversation, I might add. All of the following say exactly what you

>
> The attempt this year to reprise last year’s Million Mom March was a
dud,
> attracting only about 200 demonstrators, and the Democrats’
political gurus
> are whining about how Al Gore’s pro-gun-control stance cost him
votes last
> year in crucial states. So the anti-gun activists have moved to a

less
> democratic venue: the United Nations.
>
> On July 9 to 20, New York City will host the United Nations
Conference on
> Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
The
> purpose of this conference is to demonize the private ownership of

guns and
> get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns.
>
>
> Don’t think that this UN conference is just a talkfest. It is
scheduled to
> produce a legally binding treaty to require governments to mark,
number,

> register, record, license, confiscate, and destroy all guns except
those in
> the hands of the military and the police.
>

It is truly priceless to hear you draw the conclusion of a great .plot
when all of this is really just a minority point of view. We call
this democracy in action. It is perfectly within the realm of

rational thought that some people don’t like guns. My employer is one
of them. And you don’t see the Brits giving up their national
sovereignty after losing their guns do you? And what of the French,
who are probably the most nationalistic of all countries on the
planet, who will almost certainly be the last to heed the call for

global government, and this from a country with a sometimes socialist
government!! Worse yet, this entire answer is based on a false
premise that PS’s article is correct, which is absurd on it’s face.

> >So where’s the great .plot dude? First of all, PS is a well known
> >Bircher.
>
> I beg to differ!!!

Mrs. Schlafly has never, ever been a Bircher
> and you are free to ask her so.
>
> >Some of us call this a “duhh.” Secondly, the entire
piece is an opinion
> >piece, chock full of innuendo and conclusion without premise.
>
> Great…….while
you’re asking about her non-Birch status, you

> can browbeat her over her poor research habits.
>
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >So where’s the great .plot dude? First of all, PS is a well
known

> >Bircher.
>
> I beg to differ!!!
Mrs. Schlafly has never, ever been a
Bircher
> and you are free to ask her so.
>
> >Some of us call this a “duhh.” Secondly, the entire
piece is an

opinion
> >piece, chock full of innuendo and conclusion without premise.
>
> Great…….while
you’re asking about her non-Birch status,
you
> can browbeat her over her poor research habits.
>
>
>

I will, so to speak. I’m pretty sure she was in the early 1960s. I
know someone who will give me an answer. Either way, it is
indisputable that she has mouthed a lot of Birch stuff over the years.
I will gladly admit error if this is incorrect.

As it turns out, I was incorrect on this issue. However, I
completely forgot to tell JAQ during the debate. But it is not so black
and white as you might expect: after all, you would expect the answer to be a
yes or a no. I sent a note to an email list that monitors the
JBS and other far right groups. As it turns out, well known researcher
Chip Berlet interviewed her and she denies ever being a Birch member, which is
probably correct. But she also denies any ideological similarity, which is
obviously an absurdity: so much so that many people thought that she was indeed
a member. Additionally, according to another list member, she has written
for their publications and indeed her writings have been featured in their
bookstores. The secrecy about her affiliations are a trifle baffling.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >I will, so to speak. I’m pretty sure she was in the early 1960s. I
> >know someone who will give me an answer.
>
> Why not ask Jack
McManus <deleted>? He’s
currently

> President of the national organization and has been a member since the
’60s.
>
> >Either way, it is indisputable that she has mouthed a lot of Birch
stuff
> >over the years.
>
> So?!? Is that a
crime? It only shows how free-thinking the
> libertine/libertarian people are.

> >I will, so to speak. I’m pretty sure she was in the early 1960s. I
> >know someone who will give me an answer.
>
> Why not ask Jack
McManus <deleted>? He’s
currently
> President of the national organization and has been a member since

the ’60s.
>
> >Either way, it is indisputable that she has mouthed a lot of Birch
stuff
> >over the years.
>
> So?!? Is that a
crime? It only shows how free-thinking the
> libertine/libertarian people are.

Here we have a Bircher admitting that Schlafly does indeed follow the Birch
line. Why she would deny ideological similarity is beyond me. And
what
any of this gun control stuff has to do with any global plot nonsense is worse. There are many who think guns cause crime. Hardly evidence of a
plot, it sounds to me like not everyone thinks like a conservative like myself.

Sheesh!!

This next conversation was another email sent from JAQ without a conversation
attached to it. It is really amusing to hear the populist types (better
known as extremist groups) get all bent out of shape over semantics as JAQ does
in this conversation. It is often heard among these groups the difference
between a democracy and a republic: they harp on the issue constantly.
Rather than argue a ridiculous point, I caved in to JAQ on this point and
admitted error. In reality, I forgot and didn’t want to look it up for a
reminder. It is simply beyond comprehension that JAQ would somehow think
that the word Parliament somehow implies a dictatorship, yet that is apparently
what he thinks as we will see below. Birchers are indeed a baffling bunch.

> >letters for Birchers to see: “PARLIAMENT.” That’s
democracy by
> >definition!!!!!
>
> For the final flippin’
time, boy……the United States is NOT a
> democracy, but a Democratic Republic – meaning that we have a solid
> Constitution (that protects everybody’s rights) and we change things by

> >Where’s the .plot here, John? It says right up there, in great
big
> >letters for Birchers to see: “PARLIAMENT.” That’s
democracy by

> >definition!!!!!
>
> For the final flippin’
time, boy……the United States is
NOT a
> democracy, but a Democratic Republic – meaning that we have a solid
> Constitution (that protects everybody’s rights) and we change things
by

> democratic vote.
>
> I don’t know what
you’re studying in undergrad school
(besides
> pom-pom girls), but I had to read “Kommunist Manifesto” for a
required

> >So what? My semantics may have been off, but the argument hasn’t
been
> >touched by your answer. A parliament is an elected body, in direct
> >contradiction to your global dictatorship nonsense.
>

> Elected by WHOM?!? I
see nothing that suggests that we “little
> people” will have any say, whatsoever. Besides, Italy had a
“parliament”
> under Benito Mussolini. If you think that was “fair and
democratic”, I’ve
> got some beach front property in the middle of Tucson to sell to you at a

> >So what? My semantics may have been off, but the argument hasn’t
been
> >touched by your answer. A parliament is an elected body, in direct
> >contradiction to your global dictatorship nonsense.
>
> Elected by WHOM?!? I
see nothing that suggests that we

“little
> people” will have any say, whatsoever. Besides, Italy had a
“parliament”
> under Benito Mussolini. If you think that was “fair and
democratic”,
I’ve
> got some beach front property in the middle of Tucson to sell to you

The UN has always been a democratic organization. The title said
parliament. That is democratic (or republican government, if you
prefer). The word parliament assumes democratic elections by
definition. Admit error here, John. You ASSUME it to be something

that is neither stated nor implied, namely a dictatorship. It is not
logical to conclude dictatorship from the word parliament, as you
would have us believe.

>
> >The UN has always been a democratic organization.
>
> It’s charter was
written by Alger Hiss, convicted of lying before
> Congress about his spy activities for the USSR.
>
> >The title said parliament.

>
> And………..?!?
>
> >That is democratic (or republican government, if you prefer).
>
> No!!! A true republic
has a rock-solid Constitution at its core.
> If you don’t buy this, visit <http://www.Constitution.org>
a site that is

> wholly neutral and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the JBS.
>
> >The word parliament assumes democratic elections by definition.
>
> Again, elected by
whom?!? Mussolini had a parliament, but only
> nobility could actually vote. I know because my grandparents escaped from
> Italy when Benito took over.

>
> >Admit error here, John.
>
> No way…………..
>
> >You ASSUME it to be something that is neither stated nor implied,
namely a
> >dictatorship.
>
> Young fellow, I’ve
got a greater command of history than do you

> and it’s simply because I’ve been around to observe alot longer. I know
> that the greatest enemy of communism is capitalism and that’s why communist
> nations have the United States as a sworn enemy. I also know that the only
> “world wars” happened during the 20th century – to cause
instability and
> the desire for another governmental “safeguard” to give the
illusion of

> peace. Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is coexistence through
> being able to defend one’s belongings and country.
>
>

—————————————————————–

The twisted logic in this conversation simply staggers the imagination.
You would think that on such an obvious point that JAQ would admit error
here. The ridiculous assumption that the word parliament automatically
assumes a dictatorship is truly mind expanding. My goodness gracious
mercy, folks. But instead of admitting error, JAQ continues to press this
insane line of reasoning.

You just have to love the twisted reasoning
directly above: communism is the greatest enemy of capitalism, and “world
wars” happened to cause instability and the desire for more government
safeguards. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the word parliament
is assumed to mean dictatorship. Them thar Birchers are indeed a curious
lot!! It sort of makes me wonder what the John Birch Society would
consider to be stupidity in print!

This conversation ends below with my last email to JAQ. This was during the time when many emails
were exchanged, and I was getting quite irked at the obvious unwillingness of
JAQ to admit error. I decided at that point to change the subject to
something more simple, even simple enough for a Bircher to understand: produce evidence for a conspiracy. Believe it or
not, that’s what this whole debate has been about all along anyway.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >The UN has always been a democratic organization.
>
> It’s charter was
written by Alger Hiss, convicted of lying

before
> Congress about his spy activities for the USSR.
>

Produce evidence, not another story to follow, John.

> >The title said parliament.
>
> And………..?!?

Produce evidence, John.

>
> >That is democratic (or republican government, if you prefer).
>
> No!!! A true republic
has a rock-solid Constitution at its
core.
> If you don’t buy this, visit <http://www.Constitution.org>

a site
that is
> wholly neutral and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the JBS.

Stop trying to change the subject. I want evidence, John, and I want
it now. Period. No more sideshows. Period.

>
> >The word parliament assumes democratic elections by definition.
>
> Again, elected by
whom?!? Mussolini had a parliament, but
only
> nobility could actually vote. I know because my grandparents escaped
from
> Italy when Benito took over.

>

Nothing to do with a global plot, John. Produce the evidence or admit
error. Period.

> >Admit error here, John.
>
> No way…………..

>
> >You ASSUME it to be something that is neither stated nor implied,
namely a
> >dictatorship.
>
> Young fellow, I’ve
got a greater command of history than do
you
> and it’s simply because I’ve been around to observe alot longer. I

know
> that the greatest enemy of communism is capitalism and that’s why
communist
> nations have the United States as a sworn enemy. I also know that
the only
> “world wars” happened during the 20th century – to cause
instability

and
> the desire for another governmental “safeguard” to give the
illusion
of
> peace. Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is coexistence
through
> being able to defend one’s belongings and country.

Even after all of this, JAQ refused to acknowledge that he had no
evidence. Instead of again acknowledging error, the conversation stops
here and fades
into oblivion. The above conversation splits off and pops up again near
the end with an admonishment by JAQ to visit a certain web site.

This next conversation was started from another separate email. I
answer with a direct quote from the web site he told me to visit.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> [http://www.cgg.ch/contents.htm]
>
> Don’t be fooled by
the “feel-good” semantics that are sprinkled
> about. This proves the intentions of those who desire a unified One-World

> government. No “ands”, “ifs”, or
“buts”……….
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> [http://www.cgg.ch/contents.htm]
>
> Don’t be fooled by
the “feel-good” semantics that are
sprinkled
> about. This proves the intentions of those who desire a unified

One-World
> government. No “ands”, “ifs”, or
“buts”……….
>
>

Here we go again, dude, where’s the .plot?

“Chapter Two: VALUES FOR THE GLOBAL NEIGHBOURHOOD
full text | section headings
The realities of living in a neighbourhood, the tensions that exist
and the ethics of being a neighbour. The application of neighbourhood
values to our world -respect for life, liberty, justice, equity,
mutual respect, caring, integrity. Adapting old principles such as
sovereignty and self determination.”

This could have come from our own constitutional convention, for

Pete’s sake. No .plot in sight here, either, John: global governance
has nothing at all to do with global government. They are completely
separate issues. And even assuming your argument is correct, you lose
anyway. You have to prove that all of this is a conspiracy, which is
ridiculous.

Where’s the great plot, John? I have yet to find anything at all to
do with the issue at hand.

Yet again my response took only a minute or so to wipe his argument right off
the map. There is nothing at all out of line in the above quotation.

The subject headings sound about as mainstream America as it gets. For
Pete’s sake, I even cited *again* the very web site that he told me to go
to. And yet again he changes the subject to another two books to read,
instead of answering my response. Here is his response below:

and order “Hope
> Of The Wicked” by Ted Flynn. In fact, you can DL the first chapter for
> free. It’s a chronology of the main events of the 20th century, leading to
> global governance. Both books are written from a Catholic perspective.
>
> And another
thing………..for your to see all the evidence I’m

> feeding you and STILL deny a consensus (conspiracies are secretive. There’s
> nothing secretive about this agenda, anymore) is intellectually dishonest!
> Face it, Mr. Rough. I met your call. Now take down that silly website.
>
>
>

—————————————————————–

This is about as bad as it gets, folks. Good heavens: for JAQ to simply
ignore the fact that I’ve completely destroyed all of his arguments
is stunning.

Remember that not everything you have read so far has
actually taken place, since all of this is going on concurrently, not in linear
fashion as you are reading this debate. Still, by this time JAQ has been
changing the subject at every turn, refusing to acknowledge the slightest error,
ignoring the transparently obvious, etc. In short, JAQ has
been getting his butt kicked and refuses to see it. And after all of the
butt kicking he has heretofore received, he has the audacity to tell me I’m the
one who is intellectually dishonest. Well, there is a relatively new word that
recently has seen extensive usage in political circles in the last decade or so
that seems to fit well here; the word is chutzpah.

Lodge
> Door” by Paul Fisher. And/or, go to <http://www.maxkol.org>
and
order “Hope
> Of The Wicked” by Ted Flynn. In fact, you can DL the first chapter

for
> free. It’s a chronology of the main events of the 20th century,
leading to
> global governance. Both books are written from a Catholic
perspective.
>
> And another
thing………..for your to see all the
evidence I’m

> feeding you and STILL deny a consensus (conspiracies are secretive.
There’s
> nothing secretive about this agenda, anymore) is intellectually
dishonest!
> Face it, Mr. Rough. I met your call. Now take down that silly
website.
>
>

>

Both books are well known as fabricated documents, John. Real
impressive.

Actually, it is you who need to reevaluate. I’ve refuted every single
argument I’ve answered. You haven’t. All you’ve done is change the

Not a single argument you’ve given in this entire conversation has
even the slightest thing to do with proving a conspiracy, proving
beyond doubt that you know nothing of what you speak!! I’m trying to
put together a puzzle and you’re trying to fix your car!!

Let’s see if you get the hint: think, John, what would you do if you

were a prosecutor charging a person with the crime of conspiracy?
Would you cite a bunch of public articles? No. What would you do?
The answer is exactly why nothing you’ve said so far has anything at
all to do with proving a conspiracy.

The above is another example of not seeing the forest from the trees on my
part. I had a great opportunity to challenge JAQ here and never saw it
because I wasn’t looking for it. It was mostly because I didn’t think that
the debate was worth it anyway at this point. You can also see from the
above response that my argument was greatly weakened because I chose not to
expound on it. I didn’t want to spend any more time here than absolutely
necessary, so the debate suffered greatly because of it. At some point
early in the debate, it became obvious that JAQ did not want a serious
discussion to take place. That realization slowly but surely soured me on
continuing a debate my heart was not really into. There were some
instances when my responses were sent late at night because of a part time night
job that I had at the time, but frankly it became increasingly difficult to
justify answering JAQs emails because I knew he had no intention of ever
acknowledging error, even the most egregious ones.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Both books are well known as fabricated documents, John.
>
> Tell you
what…….why don’t you DL that first chapter and then
> you write Mr. Flynn and tell him that he’s full of nonsense……….for

> example, do you deny that in 1940, in the Congressional Record, there
> appeared an article by John G. Alexander (called: “A New World
Order”), in
> which he called for a new world federation? Do you deny that H.G. Wells
> wrote “New World Order” in 1939, calling for “a one-world
nation-state”?

> Explain yourself!
>
> >Real impressive.
>
> Take a look at that
first chapter……….
>
> >Actually, it is you who need to reevaluate. I’ve refuted every single
> >argument I’ve answered.

>
> Like Hell, you
have!!! All you’ve done is deny, deny, deny, which
> is what people who cannot accept the truth do……….
>
> >You haven’t. All you’ve done is change the subject to something beyond
> >what my answer refuted, instead of answering the refutation directly.
>
> HUH?!?

>
> >Not a single argument you’ve given in this entire conversation has
> >even the slightest thing to do with proving a conspiracy, proving
> >beyond doubt that you know nothing of what you speak!!
>
> Oh, yeah,
right…………don’t break that arm, patting yourself
> on the back…………

>
> >I’m trying to put together a puzzle and you’re trying to fix your car!!
>
> This is an absurd
argument!
>
> >Let’s see if you get the hint: think, John, what would you do if you
> >were a prosecutor charging a person with the crime of conspiracy?
> >Would you cite a bunch of public articles? No. What would you do?

>
> These articles are
backgrounders, if nothing else. However, it’s
> my opinion that they show intent, which would be a key element in any such
> trial.
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Both books are well known as fabricated documents, John.
>
> Tell you
what…….why don’t you DL that first chapter and
then
> you write Mr. Flynn and tell him that he’s full of
nonsense……….for
> example, do you deny that in 1940, in the Congressional Record,

there
> appeared an article by John G. Alexander (called: “A New World
Order”), in
> which he called for a new world federation? Do you deny that H.G.
Wells
> wrote “New World Order” in 1939, calling for “a one-world

fabricated. You cited two books known to have extensively fabricated
material. Admit error here, John. Reading what is known to be a flat
out lie would not be too bright, now would it, John.

>
> >Actually, it is you who need to reevaluate. I’ve refuted every

single
> >argument I’ve answered.
>
> Like Hell, you
have!!! All you’ve done is deny, deny, deny,
which
> is what people who cannot accept the truth do……….
>

The above argument is priceless; it proves my point all too well.

Instead of admitting error, you tell me to read the first chapter of a
known fabrication. Then you change the subject to HG Wells, etc.
Precisely my point, right down to the letter. Admit error, John. I
utterly and flatly reject the ridiculous notion that I should read a
known fabrication.

The above is *again* one of the responses that I actually regret sending. I
certainly did not see it at the time, but it was a truly priceless moment for
me to seize had I had the foresight to do so. I should have done what
I did at the very beginning of the debate: ask JAQ to cite a page number and
reference source and that would have made my point. He would have been
forced to acknowledge that Ted Flynn hadn’t done his homework and it would have
cornered both he and Flynn simultaneously. As stated earlier, I will
return to this issue at the end of the debate. I will challenge both JAQ
and author Ted Flynn to a debate they cannot win, complete with
documentation. Not that either will ever acknowledge error, they probably
will not, but at least I will be able to show how the debate should have been
done from the beginning, without all of the wasted time and effort.

>
> >You cited two books known to have extensively fabricated material.
Admit
> >error here, John.
>
> Your words are
hollow, Mr. Rough. One cannot simply dismiss a body
> of literature out of hand because of one’s personal perception. If these
> works are fabricated, lay down the tangible proof. I find it enormously

> curious that there are so many liars out there in print form and with
> enviable credentials, too. A few who have written such books are Phds.
>
>

—————————————————————–

At this point in this conversation, JAQ sends me a second email in response
to my prior note back to him. I did not have time to respond to the
first. The conversation picks up here with a direct challenge for me to
show proof of fabrication.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>[Show me the lie, or lies that you claim are there!]

>Chapter 1

> The
Chronological History of

>
the New World Order

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

—————————————————————–

Excellent argument on his part, but let’s not forget the
obvious point that needs to be given: JAQ has been deliberately ignoring every
point that I’ve made to refute him directly, and not once has he refuted
me. But now, quite suddenly, he is challenging me to do exactly what I’ve
been asking him all along.

This time he is actually getting to the
point rather than changing the subject again. What he sent is what you
see: the entire first chapter of a book from http://www.maxkol.org.

You can download the first chapter from that web site if you so desire. If
you think JAQ has me on the defensive with such a well thought out argument,
think again. My response takes less than 30 seconds to find since it is
right near the beginning of the chapter. Destroying a good argument on
clearly Birch turf is most satisfying: I strongly recommend it for the
uninitiated.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>[Show me the lie, or lies that you claim are there!]

How about just one to prove my point. The following:

“1844 Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Great Britain, states,
“So
you
see.the world is governed by very different
personages from

what is
imagined by those who are not behind the
scenes.”2”

Fabricated quote, papa. Never happened. Oh, and uhh, yes, papa, the
John Birch Society has quoted it as well. We’ll skip the rest, no
need to bury you with it.

> >[Show me the lie, or lies that you claim are there!]
> >
> >How about just one to prove my point. The following:
> >
> >”1844 Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Great Britain, states,
“So
> >you see.the world is governed by very different personages from

> >what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”2”
> >
> >Fabricated quote, papa. Never happened.
>
> Sez you………I’m
afraid that personal opinion isn’t good
> enough, since you deny it from me. Show me!
>

> >Oh, and uhh, yes, papa, the John Birch Society has quoted it as
> >well. We’ll skip the rest, no need to bury you with it.
>
> Show me! Put up, or
shut up!
>
>

—————————————————————–

When I mentioned “How about just one to prove my
point,” I could have cleaned JAQs clock on any one of countless points made
in the cited first chapter. Had I had the time to do so, I would gladly
have challenged Flynn’s credibility literally phrase by phrase. I did this
very thing in one of my prior articles to author G. Edward Griffin, a John Birch
Society contributor. The only reason I didn’t here was the enormous time
factor involved. Below is a quote from that article written by me, and it
gives you an idea of how much time and effort it takes to completely deal with
conspiracy theories and all of the hidden assumptions built therein:

“Welcome, again, to the fascinating world of the conspiracy theorists.
In the short span of one paragraph, Griffin has succeeded in making multiple
false statements, deliberate distortions, and openly fraudulent historical
errors. All of this, mind you, in 5 sentences and a total of 164 words. In order to set the record straight, it took 5 paragraphs, 71 sentences,
1287 words, one quoted citation and two footnotes, to say nothing of the
time involved in order to refute the ridiculous charges. That,
folks, is why the conspiracy theorists can say what they want without fear
of serious scrutiny from academia or anyone else: refuting stupidity is
an incredibly difficult task.”

Unfortunately the conversation ends here. This is one of the emails at
the end that never ended up getting answered. JAQ sent my prior response
back to me by forwarding it to me. I assumed he had had enough at that
point. When it came back to me, it was part of an entire batch of
unanswered emails — all 13 of them — that JAQ never apparently intended to
answer; or at least that’s what I thought. I will deal with the answer to
the above at
the very end because of its importance to the debate. Author Ted Flynn
ends up coming into the picture at the end. Ted Flynn is the author of the
chapter in question above.

Below is another conversation that JAQ started which had no bearing on
anything else. It was yet another attempt to change the subject. I
answered him and nothing was ever heard about it again. It only took a
minute or so at the web site that he cited to destroy the argument.

The aim of Charter 99 is to increase democratic accountability in
international decision-making. Democratic accountability ensures that
‘we’ the peoples of this world can hold decision-makers answerable for
the actions they take and the consequences that follow. It makes
decision-makers think twice about the impact their decisions have on

‘our’ lives and it allows us, if the decisions taken are unjust or
damaging, to have the power of redress.

JAQ never bothered to answer. It was yet another exchange in which JAQ refused to acknowledge
transparent error.

Is there a pattern that you can see with all of this? We are about
halfway through the debate and there really has been no serious discussion of
the issues involved yet. To wit, all that has happened has been that JAQ
has insisted on changing the subject and few if any of his arguments are
anywhere near a substantive level. Worse yet, on a number of occasions he has deliberately
refused to acknowledge even the most transparent of errors, my citation of the
Sutton article at the outset being only the first of many.

Bu there is also another point that needs to be made here as well. When
it became obvious that JAQ was not serious about having a real debate, my
motivation quickly changed from excitement at the idea to apathy at the
reality. After all, when JAQ deliberately refused to answer the Sutton
article which called into serious question the credibility of conspiracy theory
authors, including his beloved John Birch Society, my hopes were lost for any serious discussion. In hindsight I
should have cut off the conversation at that point: it was a pointless debate to
continue if there was never going to be any admission of error. But I
chose to wait it out in the hopes that JAQ would somehow come to his senses and
finally acknowledge that his cutesy John Birch answers were nothing more than opinion
from those who were just as ignorant as he was, if not worse. If the
opinions were nothing more than just that, *opinion,* surely he would see the
obvious pattern, or so I thought. He never did, of course, and the debate
dragged on for more than two solid weeks with no end in sight until the last
couple of days. In the end though, because the debate was seen by me as
completely irrelevant and not worth the effort, I allowed myself to get sloppy
at the end and it cost me dearly. What started out as a great idea quickly
turned into an exercise in stupidity. Have you noticed that almost all of
my answers so far have been very short, with little or no expounding of the arguments?

Now you know why! My heart wasn’t in it, at least for the most part, and neither was my
head.

In part two of the debate it becomes one more absurdity after another, and at
the very end another conspiracy theory author enters the picture. But
there is a surprise at the very end that puts a lot of things into focus when
dealing with conspiracy theories. If you think you know how all of this
ends, you are indeed unmistakably mistaken! Click on the link below and go
to the conspiracy theory index and click on part two of this debate